Camera Neck Straps and camera strength!
- Thread starter garyi
- Start date
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Gary,
The 1200-1700 weighs 16 kilos! It makes the standard nature photographer tele -- the 300 f/2.8, seen third from bottom right in the picture -- look lightweight and compact.
___________________________________
Guybat,
I have no idea what it's good for, but it is interesting that such an optic can be made. It has superb bokeh, by the way.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/speciallenses/6mmfish.htm
Joe
The 1200-1700 weighs 16 kilos! It makes the standard nature photographer tele -- the 300 f/2.8, seen third from bottom right in the picture -- look lightweight and compact.
___________________________________
Guybat,
Pretty much. It's a 6mm fisheye lens with a full 220º angle of view, so it can literally look over its optical shoulders.
I have no idea what it's good for, but it is interesting that such an optic can be made. It has superb bokeh, by the way.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/speciallenses/6mmfish.htm
Joe
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Gary,
OK, I was thinking of that grainy, industrial shot with the floating Mr Pig.
Anyway, back to lenses... if zooms are your thing, you should save for the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX (high-quality, general-range zoom) first, then the 12-24mm f/4 DX (high-quality wideangle zoom). With the 80-200 you now have, everything will be covered from ultrawide to proper telephoto.
By the way, what's wrong with your 35mm f/2? It should be as sharp as the 80-200mm zoom at equivalent f-stops.
Joe
OK, I was thinking of that grainy, industrial shot with the floating Mr Pig.
Anyway, back to lenses... if zooms are your thing, you should save for the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX (high-quality, general-range zoom) first, then the 12-24mm f/4 DX (high-quality wideangle zoom). With the 80-200 you now have, everything will be covered from ultrawide to proper telephoto.
By the way, what's wrong with your 35mm f/2? It should be as sharp as the 80-200mm zoom at equivalent f-stops.
Joe
garyi
leave blank
I guess so, but its not. I think the main thing is you land up using the 35mm indoors, and our house is like a cave so the results are normally dissapointing as you have to have it on F2.
I had my eye on one of these lenses next:
http://www.camerahobby.com/Review-35-70mm.htm
(the second picture, push pull type.)
What do you think? The general consensus is that its nice and sharp. Thing is to fund it I would need to sell the 35mm and 50mm primes, both of which are 'standard' lenses.
Unfortunately I do not see myself being able to spend 800+ on a lens in the near future.
I had my eye on one of these lenses next:
http://www.camerahobby.com/Review-35-70mm.htm
(the second picture, push pull type.)
What do you think? The general consensus is that its nice and sharp. Thing is to fund it I would need to sell the 35mm and 50mm primes, both of which are 'standard' lenses.
Unfortunately I do not see myself being able to spend 800+ on a lens in the near future.
garyi
leave blank
For instance this is a shot taken today at F2.8 on the big zoom, thats wide open, and poor eddies milk rash should show its able to keep it wonderfully sharp. This is at iso 400.
However the 35mm prime, could not achieve this level of sharpness unless in sunny daylight.
This picture is unedited and not great but illustrates my point. I am trying to find a 35mm one for comparison.
However the 35mm prime, could not achieve this level of sharpness unless in sunny daylight.
This picture is unedited and not great but illustrates my point. I am trying to find a 35mm one for comparison.
garyi
leave blank
This is taken with the 35mm at 2.8 iso400.
Its probably not fair to compare in this way as conditions were different, but to be fair most of the shots from the 35mm unless nice and bright conditions have been disappointing, there are only so many shots you can turn black and white to call arty.
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Gary,
I don't follow your logic. Your house is so dim that you have to shoot your 35mm f/2 wide open to get a picture, but you're considering a 35-70mm f/2.8 zoom, which is a full stop slower?
By the way, the 35-70mm f/2.8 is a good zoom, but it's not better at 35mm than your 35mm f/2.
Joe
I don't follow your logic. Your house is so dim that you have to shoot your 35mm f/2 wide open to get a picture, but you're considering a 35-70mm f/2.8 zoom, which is a full stop slower?
By the way, the 35-70mm f/2.8 is a good zoom, but it's not better at 35mm than your 35mm f/2.
Joe
Fretless Eric
Musketeer Bathos
messengerman said:
Never heard of an "arab strap"?
